On 02/23/2018 09:27 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
> Inspired-by: Laine Stump <la...@laine.org>

How can I *not* at least look at the patches when you call me out like this!

> Day-of-the-week: Friday <6>
> Ján Tomko (16):
>   vboxDumpSharedFolders: rename non-standard label
>   vboxDumpSharedFolders: remove pointless comment
>   vboxDumpSharedFolders: return a value
>   vboxDumpNetwork: add temp variable for current network
>   vboxDumpNetwork: rename to vboxDumpNetworks
>   vboxDumpNetwork: re-introduce this function
>   vboxDumpNetworks: reduce indentation level
>   vboxDumpNetwork: allocate the network too
>   vboxDumpNetworks: delete pointless comment
>   vboxDumpNetworks: do not allocate def->nets upfront
>   vboxDumpNetwork: use virMacAddrParseHex
>   vboxDumpNetwork: Use a single utf16 variable
>   vboxDumpNetwork: Use a single utf8 temp variable
>   vboxDumpNetwork: use a switch for attachmentType
>   vboxDumpNetwork: use VIR_STEAL_PTR instead of VIR_STRDUP
>   vboxDumpNetwork: use switch for adapterType
>  src/vbox/vbox_common.c | 243 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>  1 file changed, 120 insertions(+), 123 deletions(-)

Nice. Where I had whined, you actually took action! :-)

I'm unable to test, but I looked through and each patch looks
straightforward and sane (there were bits I didn't like (e.g.
perpetuating ignore_value() uses), but they were removed in subsequent
patches, so all is good. You say that you've actually tested the code,
so as long as you've also run make syntax-check and make check:

ACK series


libvir-list mailing list

Reply via email to